Monthly Archives: June 2002

One of the more troubling news stories of recent days was the poll indicating that a substantial majority of Americans don’t think we’re winning the war, with nearly half considering the war a “stalemate.” In fact, it is hard to see how we could be doing much better. Afghanistan has been liberated with stunning speed and astonishingly little loss of American life; the enemy has been deprived of its only »

It was a good day in the Supreme Court. In a relatively little-noticed decision, the Court held that it violates the First Amendment for a state to elect judges but prohibit judicial candidates from saying anything on any topic that would be relevant to the election. This bodes well, I suppose, for the fate of McCain-Feingold and its effort to make it illegal to criticize incumbents. And the Court rejected »

Astute readers of the Power Line, such as the families of Rocket Man and yours truly, will note that I have expressed ambivalence about President Bush’s Monday speech, articulating contradictory views in successive posts. Charles Krauthammer also has a characteristically excellent column today on President Bush’s speech. The column praises the speech while noting the practical difficulties that will ensue in adhering to it. »

Richard Brookhiser has a terrific column on the war in the weekly New York Observer dated July 1. He makes several points in the column, one of which is the unlikelihood that the war against us is being directed by “the dirt poor kakistocrats of Khartoum and Kabul.” He acknowledges that Osama bin Laden is charismatic, “if you find dream interpretation and Koranic midrash charismatic.” He is a fine writer »

As a former stockbroker, Martha would understand the rules relating to insider trading. That would put her in a very small minority of Americans. I was listening to a radio program on my way to work this morning, and one of the hosts said Martha was in trouble for allegedly selling her stock after the CEO told her the FDA wasn’t going to approve a drug. Another host, a young »

Say it ain’t so, Martha. I know she’s a Democrat, but I really like her. I have no idea whether there is a case against her or not. It is hard to believe that she would risk everything to avoid a relatively small stock loss. Of course, people who get as far as Martha don’t make normal calculations. »

The Pledge decision isn’t just a joke–it is actually very revealing of the contemporary liberal mind. You’ve probably read the paragraph where the Court says that “one nation under God” is the same as “one nation under Zeus,” or “under Vishnu,” or “under no god.” These guys weren’t kidding; they knew their decision would be greeted with outrage and they thought they were writing for the ages. And this is »

One thing about the 9th Circuit, you can’t accuse them of playing to the gallery. It would be hard to think of a worse time (not that there would ever be a good time) to declare the Pledge unconstitutional. Fourth of July next week, September 11 fresh in our memories, etc. Even Tom Daschle felt obliged to denounce the decision. It will undoubtedly be reversed, either by the Circuit en »

Yeah, the Trunk is right. Given last week’s death penalty decision, the Supreme Court could hold that the Constitution is unconstitutional to the extent it violates the consensus of liberal opinion. When I started typing this I meant it as a joke, but now that I think about it, the Court has been doing exactly that for several decades. »

This afternoon the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released a decision holding the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance in a public school classroom to be unconstitutional with respect to its reference to the United States being “one nation under God.” This decision is absurd. The first two of the founding laws of the United States are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the »

Rocket Man’s use of the adjective “execrable” below with respect to the previously anonymous Swedish Foreign Minister–the foreign minister of the country that couldn’t choose sides between Hitler and Churchill, right?–reminds me that on the list of those whose disapproval of President Bush’s speech must encourage us to think highly of it, I should have added the truly, deeply execrable Kofi Annan. »

An elected Palestinian government may or may not continue to make war on Israel. I think that in the short term, that depends mostly on what happens elsewhere in the region. But if it does, at least there will be a clearly accountable government to hold responsible. At a minimum, we will be out of the post-Oslo fantasy world, with its surreal debates about whether the Palestinian Authority is doing »

I have as much respect for Daniel Pipes as anyone, but it seems to me that his habitual pessimism–so often justified with respect to the Middle East over the years–has led him astray now. I agree with much of what he says about the Palestinians, but don’t understand how Bush’s approach, as outlined in his speech, “rewards terror.” The Palestinians get nothing, including a provisional state, unless they install new »